No offense taken. You're right, I was trying to circumvent the system, I fully admit that. My contention though was more that I had followed the recommendations of the customer service folks at Hasbro Toy Shop. Like I said, I would have just used my sister's name, credit card and address to place the order if I had been told, 1-per-household.

At this point for me, it's more of a matter of principal than anything else. 1-per-household is not the same as 1-per-person.

I asked the customer service supervisor re: the roomate example, and she told me point blank it was based entirely on mailing address, so for roommates, yes, one of the two roommates' order would have been cancelled. The reason I went down that path was because I first told the woman that I would have just had my step-son place the order since his last name is different than mine (and I pay his credit card bill anyway, so he wouldn't have minded) and she told me that since his mailing/billing address was the same as mine, his order would have been cancelled.

First off I want to thank you for keeping things civil, and I apologize if I came off as a dick in my post. I do that sometimes. As I have said before, I think increased quantities for the items would have made things A LOT better. As much as I appreciate Hasbro's efforts to enforce their product limits, short of putting GPS units in each toy there is no sure way to verify who would actually get it. Basing cancellations on addresses, credit cards, IP addresses, account info, or order history (those are the only things I can think of) all seem to leave a great deal of room for different people legitimately each trying to get an item to have their order cancelled.

I guess the best one can hope for is a re-release of the SDCC exclusives for the NYCC this fall.

I wonder if they just didn't oversell this thing and are scrambling to find ways to reduce the number of orders they need to fill.

I've been keeping up with the discussions on Hisstank about the Zarana and Starscream exclusives, and supposedly a few HTS reps have stated over the phone that some items were oversold.

I wouldn't be surprised if orders are still being looked over by HTS employees, and I'm guessing if they have any stock to release that it will happen all at once rather than trickling onto the website. It is very important to note that I base this on absolutely nothing.

The difference in my eyes between the business and the individual is that the individual didn't single-handedly remove 46 sets from the market. Plus there is a good chance that an individual "played by the rules" to get the set. When I originally posted, I wasn't thinking of someone buying purely for profit but rather just someone who got an extra or rethought their purchase. As someone who tries to help people out with HTF stuff at cost, I would ideally love to see everyone else doing the same... however, I can't hold it against someone when they decide to resell an item at a higher price when it turns out to be more valuable.

I do realize that I pay a markup at Wal-Mart or Target on the stuff I buy, but I do not see Target employees buying out Wal-Mart's stock to resell at an inflated price. In my eyes there is an acceptable mark-up when it comes to business, but what BBTS did is just pure greed. Sites like Entertainment Earth and Toy Maniacs prove that you can get by selling toys without having to blatantly scalp items.

So the issue you have with BBTS is quantity? I am willing to bet that the sum of individuals buying a SDCC death star set for the sole purpose of reselling it at a markup is greater than 46. Given your logic, these people are the real problem as they took far more product off the primary market than BBTS was able to. Sorry, but thinking people just changed their minds after the show is a little naive.

And Pete, I can't really side with you on anything other than your attmpt to screw big bad. That was well done. But you were one of the few people here able to order a set and you're mainly just upset that you didn't get two. Per your own admission, you would have ordered two using another address if you had known Hasbro was going to check, which is just as dishonest as any other method of conning the ordering system. In all honesty, I have two accounts and was trying to order multiples for friends at cost. But if I had two orders go thru and one was cancelled, I would not be complaining given how many others got nothing.

And Pete, I can't really side with you on anything other than your attempt to screw big bad. That was well done. But you were one of the few people here able to order a set and you're mainly just upset that you didn't get two. Per your own admission, you would have ordered two using another address if you had known Hasbro was going to check, which is just as dishonest as any other method of conning the ordering system. In all honesty, I have two accounts and was trying to order multiples for friends at cost. But if I had two orders go thru and one was cancelled, I would not be complaining given how many others got nothing.

OK - fine - never really asked you to "side with [me] on anything" so, I'm not really sure what coming down on me gets you.

I didn't have a magical web browser that breezed right through the ordering process. The same headache that everyone went through because HTS couldn't handle the load, is the same headache I went through.

Since my intention was never to resell the second set, I'm not sure why you're even bringing up the "friends at cost" thing.

When my wife and I placed our orders it was in between 11:15am, when the set was posted, and noon. At that time, the only thing we knew was that the site was jammed with traffic. We had no idea that the set was going to be as "limited" as it was. (The skeptic in me just thought that the warning of limited quantities was just a marketing ploy to bolster the desirability of the set and getting one or two was going to be like getting the Maul/Owen Comic pack from last year - in other words, no big deal. I don't care what anyone says, it's entirely possible that the same quantity they had on the floor at SDCC was the same quantity they had available from HTS.)

Having not looked at this set with my own eyes yet, I can't say whether or not at this point, knowing now what went down and how many people got denied, whether or not I would have followed through with my original plan had I gotten two. I probably would have offered it to someone here for cost just because so many people got denied.

I am not some jerk collector out to screw everyone else - I fully believe in the whole "toy karma" thing so if you wanna just label me as someone who was "conning" the system go right ahead. I don't know how many times I have to type it, but my gripe isn't that I didn't get the second set, it's that:

(a) I took the time to call HTS, get the info in advance - the customer service rep willingly told me the item number for the revenge set, so all I had to do was keep searching on that item number until it came up

(b) during the call, I admitted to the customer service rep that I would like to order two and was told about the limit of 1-per-person.

(c) specifically asked that if my wife placed a separate order with a separate email address and credit card would that be okay, and was told YES.

I don't understand how that is a "con" by any stretch of the imagination. I made a customer service rep at HTS fully aware of my "grand, conniving plan".

There is NOTHING in any of those steps that any other person couldn't have done and I'm sure someone else out there did the same thing.

« Last Edit: August 3, 2011, 11:11 PM by Pete_Fett »

Logged

Peter

Letting my collecting OCD get the better of me on a DAILY basis... and loving EVERY minute of it!

I am not coming down on you Pete and was even admitting I had the same intention of trying to order more than one set, albeit for a different reason. You did say though that if the rep had said NO it is one per household then you would have had your second sent to a different address. The policy of one per person or per household is meant to get as many items as possible to different people. Using a second address would be conning the system. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for your second order given that there was supposed to be a limit of one and many here including myself got none.

You understand that 1-per-person and 1-per-household are two totally separate things right?

I do, though I'm not sure you understand that since you were looking to score both of these for yourself not someone else in your household. And you get that one per household means they don't want you just ordering multiple items for yourself thru multiple addresses right?

There is a big difference between what you can get away with versus what is ethically right.

Feel the need to chime in here.I work at a summer camp and can get nowhere need the Internet between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Pete and I help each other out a lot. He had told me he was going to do everything he could to grab one for me. He could not.There is NO con here. Pete wanted to grab me one. I sign a contract to be at camp for 39 days. I can't break that. He did everything he could to help me.Pete and BBTS shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. He was not going to profit, other than the karma we regularly exchange by helping each other out. Sorry, but a business buying a bunch and, I don't know, upping the price by 150 percent is ludicrous. You know Brian's Toys has its hands on some too. It's greed, pure and simple. Had I not wanted the other set Pete might have been able to get, he would've kept it for his loose/carded collection-- check his posts, he does that -- or more likely offered it to another collector at cost given its scarce nature.

Logged

Co-founder and contributor, PhGeek.com"Dissertations in geek culture"Podcasts every Wednesday on iTunes or http://phgeek.podbean.com/Like us on Facebook, follow on Twitter @Geekswillrise

I had hoped to score two of them - one to keep "as is" and a second one to open up and remove the figures from the outer packaging so I could integrate the individually carded figures into my individually carded collection, thus alleviating any need to track down the Revenge variants from this set...

So, because I was told 1-per-person, I set up a second account with HTS... then I would have just called my sister, got her credit card number, Paypal'd her the cash, had the set mailed to her and picked it up the next time I visit.

Does no one read previous posts? Pete was clearly picking up the second set for himself. I know first hand how you two like to buddy up and protect each other, but let's refrain from making things up okay Cap? Besides, I have no issue with someone wanting two of these. Maybe he wanted 3 or 4 for his collection...that his right to collect what he wants. My issue is that he knew the rules were one per person and tried to circumvent that and by the post above he would have used another address to get a second one, which is conning the system. They don't place a limit on there to supplement the post offfice...they are trying to get sets to more people by letting you only get one.

If you're going to try to scam the system to get a second set, then don't complain about some retailer getting more than their fair share. And don't expect sympathy from people on here who didn't get a single set.

I probably would have offered it to someone here for cost just because so many people got denied.

Just because my original intentions were to have two for my collection, which you say is okay, then you have to acknowledge that I'm also saying that had I gotten two, I would have shared it with someone here because so many people were denied.

I still fail to see how this was a "con" because my wife ordered a set. Are you assuming that my wife doesn't consider our joint Star Wars/Star Trek/Sci-Fi collection not equally as much hers as it is mine? Are you assuming that my wife also didn't want to buy one to essentially "give" to "me" and add it to our larger Star Wars collection? There are other people who bought sets with the intention of giving it to someone else - did they also "con" HTS?

I did not drag my wife kicking and screaming to her laptop to log into her HTS account (and fight their website just like everyone else did), pressuring her to selfishly place an order for me. We have in our collection TWO of every event exclusive - including the infamous "Toy Fair Vader" mint-in-package/mint-on-card in our collection. She has a grandson and a son (my step-grandson and step-son) who are both nuts for Star Wars - we intend to one day split the Star Wars collection up between them and part of splitting that collection is that they will each get one of every store/convention/event exclusive that has ever been released. Our collecting patterns/preferences really have NOTHING to do with this discussion, yet I feel that I have to defend myself since you are repeatedly slandering me by calling me a "con man".

And still taking all of that into account, I know in my heart that I would have shared the second set, had it come, with another collector - and yeah, Piet is my friend, so most likely it would have been him.

Electronically what we did was no different then the two of us standing in line and buying two sets. The end result would still be the same.

And one last time - I don't know too many "con"s where the person who is attempting the "con" outright tells the person who is the "victim" of the alleged con what their plan is. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

« Last Edit: August 4, 2011, 10:40 AM by Pete_Fett »

Logged

Peter

Letting my collecting OCD get the better of me on a DAILY basis... and loving EVERY minute of it!

Pete, you don't have to prove anything to me. You can collect 2 or 200, that's not the issue. The point is that when a business places a limit on items like one per person or one per household they are OBVIOUSLY trying to spread the wealth. You clearly indicated you wanted two for YOUR collection and were willing to order through someone else's address to get a second set. You can say it is for your wife or your buddy, its still circumventing the system which is set up to get that second set to someone who is not you. Im not even against you doing that really...I just think it's poor taste to come whine about your second set when most people didn't get a single one. You obviously went to a lot of work to investigate that second set instead of just being happy that you got one.

Without dipping into the fray, I just want to sey that is one of the coolest things I have ever heard Pete, your whole legacy for the kids, 2 of everything plan. That's awesome, quite an impressive inheritance!

I'll be lucky if my wife doesn't throw everything in the trash when I kick it. My preference is to have her list it all on eBay so people that are really into the stuff can enjoy it, and she can use the money for the kids or her new husband or whatever. (LOL)

I don't think anyone would complain if they trawled out a few more DS sets at NYCC. It would be a nice show of good will on Hasbro's part.

If you're going to try to scam the system to get a second set, then don't complain about some retailer getting more than their fair share. And don't expect sympathy from people on here who didn't get a single set.

I feel like if the rule was "1 per person" and Pete placed an order, and his wife placed an order, they were obligated to fill it. They're not psychic, and they didn't know both were for him, and the rule was not "1 per household." Pete's wife can do whatever she likes with her set, up to and including giving it to Pete. That's not Hasbro's business.

Pete is in the right and the order should have been filled. Let's not compare what Pete did to BBTS getting 46 sets then selling them for double the price. That is scalping.